Strangely enough, I understand where glad2bhere is coming from. In this case, it's to do with a fundamental issue in gathering and validating information for research purposes.

Unfortunately, he is talking at a "level" way above you (and sometimes even I). Sometimes it's easy to forget that the other person at the other end of the computer may not be at the same "level" you are.

So, don't sweat it.

I don't think it's got anything to do with "levels" there's no such thing. The problem is that G2BH is discussing the issue based upon the written word (Kano I believe) and isn't placing his faith in the opinion of one person. Whereas James places his faith in his Sensei. Neither Kano nor James' sensei invented these throws, they simply passed on their knowledge. I believe the true intent of these throws will never truly be known because I think the names of their inventors have been lost in history. Who knows exactly who invented the hip throw, for example. I know that Kano added it into his syllabus, but it existed before his time.

I personally do not think the issue of whether throws are designed to kill is really all that important (although it is an interesting one), the fact is that they can be used that way if altered. I for one would not train in these methods even if I had the chance. For me, the purpose of throws is not to kill.

I think this thread has gone (productively) as far as is feasible. From here on I can't see anything but flaming and pointless argument.

Of course, you are right. There is nothing "wrong" with Mr. Bolton using "oral tradition" if thats where he wants to put his faith. I, myself, did this for almost the entire first ten years that I was involved in MA. The point that I am making is two-fold and I think it these are important because this thread is about "lethal intent", yes?

My first point is that more often than not the information in oral tradition is not accurate. Memories change, and things get added, dropped or modified depending on circumstances. Written documentation is an improvement over this.

Secondly, written documentation is a touchstone or common reference that all people can go to and get the same information and comment in relation to. There is no risk that one person will read one thing and another person will read another. The words are what they are and only interpretation takes over. This is why I made the point about referencing a scroll for a Koryu art in my earlier post.

Lastly let me say that I understand Mr. Bolton taking exception to my "questioning" him and his teacher. Certainly the approach I am taking is not always well-received by many MA schools and individuals. Sometimes, in order to get around such debates, people such as the MMA people will simply say "to hell with all of this" and toss the traditional baby out with the oral tradition bath water. For my part I am making an arguement one step back from that. I want to keep the traditions but from a reasoned point of view rather than simple blind faith. FWIW.

Quote:I want to keep the traditions but from a reasoned point of view rather than simple blind faith.

I agree with keeping to reality and not blindly accepting what we are told. However, reading books also presents the opinions of the author. The author is quite capable of putting their own spin on facts and I will personally hold that to scrutiny.

For an opinion to present a reasonable chance of being accepted in my opinion, it must stand up to my testing it. If I can see it for myself and it makes sense to me, I'll accept it as a good idea. If I can't test it but it seems logical to me I will give it the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I can see from physical and anotomical principles how a throw can be used for the purposes described, whether it was designed to do so, I cannot tell. I could take either of your word as truth but I'd rather leave it as an unsolved mystery, I would not presume to throw my own spin on the issue.

As far as I am concerned you hit the very core of what happens on a lot of these Nets. If you will excuse me for saying so, I think your rationale is what keeps most people who have been around a while from speaking up. Its bad enough that OTHERS will challenge a person with essentially "who do you think you are". There is also the problem of the individual of experience not speaking up and making statements about their arts. I agree that people could be taken to task for erroneous information and that includes what is written but for my money I see WAY too much duck/bob/weave when it comes time for people to speak-up about what the MA are and where they are going.

Lets use this thread as an example. The theme is "throws designed to kill." lets suppose that people just come on here and spout garbage and noone holds them accountable for spitting out BS. Or lets take that one step removed and say that a person comes on and makes a statement then pawns it off on his teacher ("cause teacher said so"). In these two cases what has happened? People have heard something but its not accurate. In fact its worse than inaccurate because once a person has done this and finds noone holds him accountable it becomes a habit. I push for people to back-up what they say with something OTHER than whatever pops into their head or our arts are going to keep moving in the same circles.

Think about it. How much harder is it not to say "someone said.." but rather I read in the TKD TIMES for August that....." or "I saw a MA program on the DISCOVERY CHANNEL last Thursday..." Whats so bad about someone being expected to be as well-read about what we do in MA as are golfers, bowlers, and football fans. Do we really WANT people out in the World representing the MA community by saying that their art teaches throws "designed" to kill and NOT be able to explain some sort of evidence other than "cause my teacher said so"? Thoughts? Comments?

Quote:As far as I am concerned you hit the very core of what happens on a lot of these Nets. If you will excuse me for saying so, I think your rationale is what keeps most people who have been around a while from speaking up. Its bad enough that OTHERS will challenge a person with essentially "who do you think you are". There is also the problem of the individual of experience not speaking up and making statements about their arts. I agree that people could be taken to task for erroneous information and that includes what is written but for my money I see WAY too much duck/bob/weave when it comes time for people to speak-up about what the MA are and where they are going.

Thank goodness there are people like you then who don't mind duking it out a little.

Quote:Lets use this thread as an example. The theme is "throws designed to kill." lets suppose that people just come on here and spout garbage and noone holds them accountable for spitting out BS. Or lets take that one step removed and say that a person comes on and makes a statement then pawns it off on his teacher ("cause teacher said so"). In these two cases what has happened? People have heard something but its not accurate. In fact its worse than inaccurate because once a person has done this and finds noone holds him accountable it becomes a habit. I push for people to back-up what they say with something OTHER than whatever pops into their head or our arts are going to keep moving in the same circles.

Arguing is not going to stop them spouting rubbish, education will help. I believe that a better way to deal with the situation is to suggest a person do their own research and question what they are taught. You can't force someone to learn, they have to want to do it themselves.

Quote:Think about it. How much harder is it not to say "someone said.." but rather I read in the TKD TIMES for August that....." or "I saw a MA program on the DISCOVERY CHANNEL last Thursday..." Whats so bad about someone being expected to be as well-read about what we do in MA as are golfers, bowlers, and football fans. Do we really WANT people out in the World representing the MA community by saying that their art teaches throws "designed" to kill and NOT be able to explain some sort of evidence other than "cause my teacher said so"? Thoughts? Comments?

People don't like to think they're wrong. They really don't like to think that what they have been taught is wrong in any way. I know this firsthand, having studied TKD, I was forced to see its flaws upon joining Jujutsu and accept the art for what it is. People place a great deal of faith in their teachers, generally believing what they are told without real justification and often times this can be abused. I agree with what you are doing, just not the way you are going about it.

A small number of really good texts on classical Japanese Jujutsu are out there.And some of the techniques shown illustrate that a number of throws were designed to cause major damage.

From what little I have read, a number of throws "back in the day" were done in such a way as to make it really hard for folks to fall in a safe manner--ie. they were designed to actually injure or kill the guy being tossed.

(such as on his neck rather than back/shoulder)

The problem is that I don't know of any that specifcally deal with the arts that became Kano's judo.So we can only extrapolate from what "other" period schools did.

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.

Leo, your profile says 19, but it's sure sounds as though you've been on the planet ALOT longer! Believe it or not, I agree with what you are saying G2bh, but I have come to realize there are different layers of verification.

There areHard Fact - This is undisputed documented evidence which can be simply looked up.Deductive fact/reasoning - difinitively unprovable, yet all of the evidence points to one answer.General Consensus - Based on the experiences of 'qualified' others in the field, they agree it to be the answer or the most likely of answers.Best Guess / Opinion - Some or many agree to a point of view which leeds to an answer.Speculation / Folklore - Something believed to be true with virtually no supporting evidence.

In order for the thread to be resolved, we have to agree on this:Which layer of 'truth' does the answer to "Throws designed to Kill" fall in to? (no pun intended)

I'd say so far it's Best Guess / Opinion. Unless someone points to something more credible. Isn't it pointless to argue over who has the best guess?

".....From what little I have read, a number of throws "back in the day" were done in such a way as to make it really hard for folks to fall in a safe manner--ie. they were designed to actually injure or kill the guy being tossed...."

Yes, I have heard an identical thing said of Shuai Chiao (Chinese Wrestling). The intention is not so much to throw with force as much as to cause the person to fall in a clumsy fashion. I had the unfortunate luck to experience a simple hip throw done after the Shuai Chiao fashion. Rather than be thrown such that the axis of my body was parallel to that of my partner, my hips were engaged on end, as it were. The result was that I came over my partner in a way that I was not aligned to take the fall on my back or on my side. The effect was a curious kind of disorientation at not having been able to land as I was accustomed. Not a lethal application but certainly disorienting.

Taking a page from Dr. Yang, Jwing Ming it is also noteworthy that most (if not all) Chin Na techniques that he writes of are applied with the thought of effecting the skeletal, muscular or nervous tissue. There is much talk of tears, strains and sprains. No actual talk of death. FWIW.